[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Shah v Chic Childrenswear [1998] UKEAT 363_98_0105 (1 May 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/363_98_0105.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 363_98_0105, [1998] UKEAT 363_98_105

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR WEISBARD (Solicitor) ELAAS


 


JUDGE LEVY QC: This application arises from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Bedford on 14 November 1997. On that date, a Tribunal Chairman, sitting alone, had to decide whether the application by Mr Ramesh Shah had been presented in time within the terms of Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or whether, if it was out of time, it had been reasonably practical for the Applicant to have presented his application in time.

The facts are succinctly set out in the Extended Reasons of the Chairman promulgated on 25 November 1997. He decided that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because it had been presented out of time. It was not in dispute that Mr Shah, the Applicant, had left his employment, at the latest, on 7 April 1997. He had been advised by a friend, Mr Mehta. Mr Mehta had written two letters on 20 June, one to Mr Shah himself, and another, which is addressed to an Industrial Tribunal, which had been sent by the Royal Mail with a Certificate of Posting on the envelope, which was said to contain the letter of 20 June 1997: such letter, the learned Chairman held, could have been accepted as an appropriate application form, an appropriate IT1. The learned Chairman, having considered all the evidence about that letter, said this in the Extended Reasons:

"10. It is quite clear that whatever the fate of the letter, there is no evidence that it was presented [the words used in the Section] to the Tribunal. Mr Mehta's evidence is directed to its being sent, rather than its being received "presented", that is, received by the Tribunal. There is no record of receipt of delivery as there could so easily have been had this document been sent by recorded delivery. The Tribunal has no record of receiving the letter. I find on these facts that the letter has not reached the Tribunal, and therefore cannot of itself amount to an application that has been "presented" within three months of the termination of employment.

11. The authorities have made clear that the simple fact that a letter failed to reach the Tribunal does not of itself mean that it was not reasonably practicable for the application to be made in time. Decision such as Capital Foods Retail Ltd -v- Corrigan [1993] IRLR 430 and Camden & Islington Community Services NHS Trust -v- Kennedy [1996] IRLR 381 have made clear that particularly in the case of professional advisors, it is ordinary and prudent practice to chase up a letter if no acknowledgement is received from the Tribunal. Mr Mehta has clearly been a professional advisor in the past. His explanation for not chasing up the letter is that he has been unwell. And yet today, to do Mr Mehta justice, he has presented evidence and cross examined in a vigorous and capable manner."

In paragraph 12 the learned Chairman concludes that there is insufficient evidence that this particular letter was "presented" to the Tribunal and the delay was such that it would be inappropriate to extend time and Mr Shah's application failed at that stage.

Mr Weisbard has appeared on the Preliminary Hearing of this appeal before us through the ELAAS scheme. He has helpfully said to us that he could see nothing in the grounds of appeal which had been submitted by Mr Shah earlier, which could make any Tribunal think that the appeal had any chance of success. We too have read those grounds of appeal and respectfully agree with him.

Mr Weisbard put forward as a ground for letting the appeal go forward this: it was within his knowledge that from time to time letters to an Industrial Tribunal got mislaid and maybe this is what had happened to the letter to which the Certificate of Posting relied. That is a "maybe" of which no doubt the learned Chairman did take account of in the paragraphs of the Extended Reasons set out above.

In our judgment on the facts as found which came from evidence presented to him, the learned Chairman was entitled to reach the decision he did and it is not one, in those circumstances, with which this Tribunal is entitled to interfere. In the circumstances, while thanking Mr Weisbard for the care which he has taken in preparing this case for us and for the helpful submissions which he has made on behalf of Mr Shah, we must dismiss the appeal at this stage.